ReviewCureus2024
A Literature Review on Optimizing Study Strategies in Medical Education: Insights From Exam Scores and Study Resources.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- From prediction to advising: a multi model approach using NBME subject examinations to inform step 2 CK performance.Medical education online · 2026Article
- A Low-Resource Intervention to Improve Emergency Medicine NBME Scores: Risk Notification and Study Plan Submission.AEM education and training · 2026Article
- Relationship of Clinical Encounters to End-of-rotation Exam Scores for Fourth-year Students in Emergency Medicine.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Medical students' perceptions of the effectiveness of module study guides: a mixed-methods study in Saudi Arabia.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- An Assessment of Anki Flashcards Use in Comparison to Alternative Study Methodologies in First Year Graduate Entry Medical Students.Medical science educator · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical school exams, like those by the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) and the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), assess essential knowledge and skills for safe patient care, essential for student advancement and securing competitive residencies. Understanding the correlation between exam scores and medical school performance, as well as identifying trends among high scorers, provides valuable insights for both medical students and educators. This review examines the link between study resources and NBME exam scores, as well as psychological factors influencing these outcomes. The focus is on identifying key factors, particularly study resources, that can improve medical student test scores. This literature review synthesizes research from the past 15 years on teaching methods, study resources, and academic success in medical education. While foundational knowledge and study techniques are widely agreed upon, there are gaps in evaluating specific approaches, alternative materials, and the integration of new educational technologies. Key findings from our review include the effectiveness of practice questions and spaced repetition for long-term retention, as well as the impact of prior academic performance and study strategies (e.g., question bank use) on Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores. Factors like time management, self-testing skills, and structured preparation programs are crucial to success. Commercial resources like First Aid, UWorld, Boards and Beyond, and Pathoma are noted for their comprehensive support in exam preparation. Future research may offer insights to further optimize study strategies and improve performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.